Canada: Mainstream enviros will protect Boreal by helping loggers cut it down in a more conscientious way

The northern portion of our forests has not been allocated to
industry. Before that happens, we need land-use plans that address
ecological needs, First Nations rights and the economic potential of
these regions. The federal government has a responsibility for
completing these plans in the Northwest Territories.

It could also
invest in ways to support recent commitments by Ontario and Quebec to
prepare land-use plans that will protect at least 50 per cent of their
northern boreal regions. In the 1930s large tracts of public land were
assigned to pulp companies. Industry invested capital and put
thousands of people to work cutting trees and in the mills. Government
collected taxes. But conditions have changed and industry can’t keep
up its end of the deal. It’s time to renegotiate contracts and have
forests managed by public, not-for-profit corporations that sell wood
and other products for the highest price. Forests would become sources
of revenue for communities rather than cost centres for companies. New
industries would have access to wood supply, the pulp and paper
industry would have lower costs and the Americans would have one less
argument against Canadian lumber imports. As he figures out where to
send the stimulus cheques, we hope that Flaherty takes time to look up
from his desk and glance across the Ottawa River. There he will see
forested hilltops and glimpse a key part of Canada’s green industrial
future. We have more forests than any other advanced country in the
world. Let’s not miss this opportunity to be smart about how we use
them to support our future.

Posted via email from Deane’s posterous

Comments (4)

ValerieJanuary 5th, 2009 at 10:57 pm

The title of this post is at odds with the content. Is it possible that someone just has a hate on for a few enviro groups in spite of what they actually do. For example, which enviro groups were behind the Ontario and Quebec governments’ agreements to create landuse plans that protect 50% of the their northern boreal regions (that was a good thing wasn’t it – and you don’t think the government came up with that by themselves).

Deane’s Response: The title of this post views the world’s current deforestation as being far more critical than yet again cutting the baby in half so everyone will stop fighting. Point is, one way or another, logging as we currently know it must and will end. Groups like Forest Ethics are not doing their job when they overemphasize success and under emphasize failings! Forest Ethics needs to do its job by doing what real forest defenders do and redouble their efforts by growing stronger and gaining greater influence by fighting for transparency, which in turn educates and involves a greater and greater number of pro-active protection-oriented citizenry, which in turn increases the amount of forest we have the power to fully protect once and for all.

ValerieJanuary 7th, 2009 at 3:39 am

What do “real” forest defenders do? They “redouble their efforts” “grow stronger” and “gain greater influence by fighting for transparency”. ForestEthics has redoubled its efforts, grown stronger and gained greater influence. We’ve taken on campaigns for ever larger swaths of forest – from the Great Bear Rainforests 6.4 million ha. to the boreal forests across Canada, the Sierra forests of California, and Chilean temperate rainforests. We have, in coalition with numerous other groups achieved commitments to forest protection now totalling over 22.9 million hectares (55 million acres) and we are still advocating for more, including in British Columbia and throughout the Canadian boreal.

We have a proven track record of large scale, on the ground, bona fide protection. We have achieved that through campaigns that included over 700 protests by citizens across the continent, getting a thousand letters of support for conservation from small and large businesses mailed to governemnts, public education campaigns, newspaper ads, market pressure campaigns and direct engagement with industry, government and First Nations.

Deanne, it sounds like you are angry because you think ForestEthics, and other groups should be doing even more citizen engagement work than we are. We do as much citizen engagement work as we can when it is the best strategy given our resources. We are part of a movement, not the entire movement, and no-one, particularly not ForestEthics, is stopping conservationists like you from doing their activist campaigns. Bring on the educated pro-active protection oriented citizenry. There is room for many points of pressure and in fact it is needed. The problem is that whenever we do public campaigns there are a few people, you included, who try to drag us down and alienate the people from us. Totally confusing.

I find this anger turned inward really counter-productive. Count the amount of forest actually protected in areas that groups like ForestEthics have worked in and explain again what you think is going wrong. If it’s that we haven’t saved everything yet, well none of us have managed to save the world yet, and not for not trying.

MadmacsJanuary 6th, 2010 at 8:18 pm

FAIL @ 1st comment…

DeaneJanuary 6th, 2010 at 10:01 pm


Full fail a first mention?

Please specify?

Leave a comment

Your comment